Decision 1519H – Regents of the University of California (Los Alamos National Laboratory)

SF-CE-613-H

Decision Date: May 7, 2003

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 27
Perc Index: 67

Decision Headnotes

200.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE? (SEE 502 AND 1309)
200.01000 – In General

A charging party claiming supervisory status must provide specific facts establishing that status. Enter did not provide any evidence of her supervisory status. Since LANL disputed her claim of supervisory status, the Board agent analyzed her claims under HEERA as if Enter was a non-supervisory employee.

200.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE? (SEE 502 AND 1309)
200.04000 – Supervisors

A charging party claiming supervisory status must provide specific facts establishing that status. Enter did not provide any evidence of her supervisory status. Since LANL disputed her claim of supervisory status, the Board agent analyzed her claims under HEERA as if Enter was a non-supervisory employee.

300.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
300.12000 – Insistence on Union Representation

Under the Weingarten standard, if the purpose of an employer-employee meeting is to present a final disciplinary memo and is not investigatory, the employee has no right to union representation at the meeting. However, LANL allowed Enter to have representation at the meeting, though not the representative of her choice. These facts do not allege a prima facie case of interference under HEERA.

408.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS
408.01000 – In General

Under the Weingarten standard, if the purpose of an employer-employee meeting is to present a final disciplinary memo and is not investigatory, the employee has no right to union representation at the meeting. However, LANL allowed Enter to have representation at the meeting, though not the representative of her choice. These facts do not allege a prima facie case of interference under HEERA.

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.01000 – In General

Enter, as an individual employee, lacked standing to allege a unilateral change by the employer for denying her a choice of representative in a disciplinary hearing.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.03000 – Standing

Enter, as an individual employee, lacked standing to allege a unilateral change by the employer for denying her a choice of representative in a disciplinary hearing.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.12000 – Extensions of Time

Enter’s failure to respond to a Board agent’s inquiry whether she needed an extension of time to file an amended charge after the deadline was proper grounds for a dismissal of Enter’s charge by the Board agent.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.01000 – In General

A charging party must establish that the challenged conduct did not fall outside the six-month statute of limitations in order for the Board to proceed to evaluate the merits of the charge. Enter did not provide the date of the alleged tampering of the report or the date the report was issued; therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction to evaluate the merits of the charges.